Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Philosophy Club

[h_k_s]

GaryLouisSmith anytime anyone around me publicizes and/or flaunts their sexuality around me, I reflexively withdraw away from them. As I said, there is a list of things that I do not approve of people publicizing.

In philosophy, it is clear that Plato was non-heterosexual from his discussions of the Athenian General Alcibiades.

In the case of Aristotle we simply do not know. He never flaunted it either way. Having lived in Athens he was probably exposed to all sorts of alternative sexualities however, since the ancient Greeks were primarily bisexual as we know.

[GaryLouisSmith]

@GaryLouisSmith anytime anyone around me publicizes and/or flaunts their sexuality around me, I reflexively withdraw away from them. As I said, there is a list of things that I do not approve of people publicizing.

In philosophy, it is clear that Plato was non-heterosexual from his discussions of the Athenian General Alcibiades.

In the case of Aristotle we simply do not know. He never flaunted it either way. Having lived in Athens he was probably exposed to all sorts of alternative sexualities however, since the ancient Greeks were primarily bisexual as we know.

Why do you think anyone will pay any attention to some list you have? No one cares about your list. Life is one giant Interruption. We all have to put up with it. No one gets to sit alone uninterrupted.

[GaryLouisSmith]

@GaryLouisSmith you are correct. There is a strong argument supporting the non-heterosexuality of Jesus. After all he did have an unusual affection towards St. John the younger brother of James/Jakob.

However, Moses and St. Paul were very anti non-heterosexual. So there is an inherent conflict within Christianity on that issues.

You are right. So I must agree with you.

I think it is funny the way you will not say homosexual, but you refer to the non-heterosexuality of someone. There is more than a conflict in Christianity and Judaism over these issued; there is war. In the early part of the Old Testament God has a body and his relation to man is decidedly physical. Look at how he raped Jacob on the journey back to Canaan. Look at the rave on the "High Places" when Samuel was the leader. Look at how God exposed himself (flashed) to the boy Samuel when he was staying with Eli. The early Israelite religion was a Phallic Cult. It matched the Great Vulva cult on the neighboring "High Place". It goes on and one. Today God would be arrested. Finally around the sixth century BC, the Israelite heterosexual men had had enough of this God and his "love", so they wrote all kinds of laws against it and stuck them in the later books. They came to insist that God have no body and that he become just a moral principle. They finally defeated this "lover". The War was on. It's the same in the New Testament. The heterosexualists have been trying mightily to cover up their decidedly queer Lord ever since the beginning of the religion. That's why there is almost no biographical account of Jesus in scripture. The real story has been deleted. The gay Jesus was an embarrassment. They turned him into a paterfamilias. And family values took over. Yes, it's war!

[Karpel Tunnel]

That just shows how different people are. I love those old industrial areas and that is where I might have the strongest feeling of the presence of God. Nature areas for me don't mean much. Especially since I have allergies to pollen. I have the same taste in industrial electronic music. This isn't really industrial but I like it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wX-OgVd2kio

People are different.

[Consul]

Ontologically speaking, I think negative facts do exist. I walk into a restaurant and I see that my friend Keshab is not there. I look in my wallet and I see that I have no money. I ask my friend a question and I see that he has no answer. We can be directly aware of the absence or non-existence of something.

No we can't, because absences or lacks aren't entities, and nonentities aren't perceptible. The reification of absences or lacks as entia negativa (negative entities) is a big ontological mistake.
When you become aware that your friend Keshab isn't there, you don't see the negative state of affairs of Keshab's not being there. For you don't see the positive state of affairs of Keshab's being there, and conclude therefrom that he's not there. Not seeing his presence is not the same as seeing his absence! Being/Existence is always positive! Negation—"the not"—mustn't be reified in terms of negative entities such as negative facts or negative properties.

[Felix]

GaryLouisSmith: The heterosexualists have been trying mightily to cover up their decidedly queer Lord ever since the beginning of the religion. That's why there is almost no biographical account of Jesus in scripture.

Nonbelievers will of course say that's because he is a mythical character and the authoritative historical accounts of the time period support that position - there is absolutely no record of him.

But you are contradicting yourself: if there is so little biographical information on Jesus, why do you presume he was gay? One could make a case for any sexual orientation - or none at all, there are people who are genuinely asexual, they could care less about sex. If one finds simply being alive to be blissful, and Joy is one's constant companion, the lesser pleasures have no allure.

[h_k_s]

@GaryLouisSmith you are correct. There is a strong argument supporting the non-heterosexuality of Jesus. After all he did have an unusual affection towards St. John the younger brother of James/Jakob.

However, Moses and St. Paul were very anti non-heterosexual. So there is an inherent conflict within Christianity on that issues.

You are right. So I must agree with you.

I think it is funny the way you will not say homosexual, but you refer to the non-heterosexuality of someone. There is more than a conflict in Christianity and Judaism over these issued; there is war. In the early part of the Old Testament God has a body and his relation to man is decidedly physical. Look at how he raped Jacob on the journey back to Canaan. Look at the rave on the "High Places" when Samuel was the leader. Look at how God exposed himself (flashed) to the boy Samuel when he was staying with Eli. The early Israelite religion was a Phallic Cult. It matched the Great Vulva cult on the neighboring "High Place". It goes on and one. Today God would be arrested. Finally around the sixth century BC, the Israelite heterosexual men had had enough of this God and his "love", so they wrote all kinds of laws against it and stuck them in the later books. They came to insist that God have no body and that he become just a moral principle. They finally defeated this "lover". The War was on. It's the same in the New Testament. The heterosexualists have been trying mightily to cover up their decidedly queer Lord ever since the beginning of the religion. That's why there is almost no biographical account of Jesus in scripture. The real story has been deleted. The gay Jesus was an embarrassment. They turned him into a paterfamilias. And family values took over. Yes, it's war!

Excellent summary of the various issues around this topic of a man-loving God or Gods.

In the case of Jaakob (English transliteration of original Hebrew) depending on your translation from ancient Hebrew, it is quite a stretch to presume this was about a sexual act. But it does show that God (or one of the Hebrew Gods) is physical indeed. No question about that. It also shows that the Christian and Judaic notion that no man can see God and live is a fallacy. Jaakob saw God and lived to tell about it.

Whether God/Theos or God/Jesus or even God/Holy Spirit (the Christian deities from the Greek New Testament) is man-loving or not, we are not told. St. Paul certainly would have argued against it, as would have Moses, if they were each here to argue about it.

[h_k_s]

@GaryLouisSmith anytime anyone around me publicizes and/or flaunts their sexuality around me, I reflexively withdraw away from them. As I said, there is a list of things that I do not approve of people publicizing.

In philosophy, it is clear that Plato was non-heterosexual from his discussions of the Athenian General Alcibiades.

In the case of Aristotle we simply do not know. He never flaunted it either way. Having lived in Athens he was probably exposed to all sorts of alternative sexualities however, since the ancient Greeks were primarily bisexual as we know.

Why do you think anyone will pay any attention to some list you have? No one cares about your list. Life is one giant Interruption. We all have to put up with it. No one gets to sit alone uninterrupted.

It's a good list, worth following, as Marcus Aurelius the philosopher-emperor of Rome would have said too.

It helps us to co-exist.

Co-existence is a good thing.

Intolerance is a bad thing.

[Felix]

h_k_s: It also shows that the Christian and Judaic notion that no man can see God and live is a fallacy. Jaakob saw God and lived to tell about it.

"Live" is not meant in the literal sense, it means to no longer live as the unenlightened do (those who have not known God). One is then, as Jesus said, "in the world but not of it."

[GaryLouisSmith]

Why do you think anyone will pay any attention to some list you have? No one cares about your list. Life is one giant Interruption. We all have to put up with it. No one gets to sit alone uninterrupted.

It's a good list, worth following, as Marcus Aurelius the philosopher-emperor of Rome would have said too.

It helps us to co-exist.

Co-existence is a good thing.

Intolerance is a bad thing.

[GaryLouisSmith]

Ontologically speaking, I think negative facts do exist. I walk into a restaurant and I see that my friend Keshab is not there. I look in my wallet and I see that I have no money. I ask my friend a question and I see that he has no answer. We can be directly aware of the absence or non-existence of something.

No we can't, because absences or lacks aren't entities, and nonentities aren't perceptible. The reification of absences or lacks as entia negativa (negative entities) is a big ontological mistake.
When you become aware that your friend Keshab isn't there, you don't see the negative state of affairs of Keshab's not being there. For you don't see the positive state of affairs of Keshab's being there, and conclude therefrom that he's not there. Not seeing his presence is not the same as seeing his absence! Being/Existence is always positive! Negation—"the not"—mustn't be reified in terms of negative entities such as negative facts or negative properties.

Yes we can, because absences or lacks are entities and nonentities are perceptible. You can't reify what is already there. Yes, Consul, negative facts exist and I can perceive them right easily. Being/existence is not always positive. It seems to me that this is an old philosophical question and answers have been given on both sides for a very long time. We just happen to be on opposite sides of the issue. I take my stand with Meinong. And even with Russell on that one occasion when he too believed in negative facts. Apparently being booed by students at Yale rattled him and he gave up the idea.

[GaryLouisSmith]

It's a good list, worth following, as Marcus Aurelius the philosopher-emperor of Rome would have said too.

It helps us to co-exist.

Co-existence is a good thing.

Intolerance is a bad thing.

This is the second time I sent this. Somehow it got lost on the first try. It may again.

You are being very anti-capitalist there. I presume the Rocky Mountains you live in are either American or Canadian. In either case all day long you are bombarded with advertizing (even on this forum page). Everywhere you go you are forced to look at ten thousand brands of ten thousand things. And NONE of it is designed to appeal to your reason, but to your deep sub-conscious. It’s the same with religion. So many types, none of it appealing to your reason, but to your deep feelings. It’s all so very f*cking capitalist. And there is no way you can avoid it. It is in your face all the time. Be a good American or Canadian and just let it roll over you. When you enter a shopping mall are you so overwhelmed that you just have to leave? Or into a buffet restaurant. Or into a porno site. Or … it goes on and on.

[GaryLouisSmith]

I think it is funny the way you will not say homosexual, but you refer to the non-heterosexuality of someone. There is more than a conflict in Christianity and Judaism over these issued; there is war. In the early part of the Old Testament God has a body and his relation to man is decidedly physical. Look at how he raped Jacob on the journey back to Canaan. Look at the rave on the "High Places" when Samuel was the leader. Look at how God exposed himself (flashed) to the boy Samuel when he was staying with Eli. The early Israelite religion was a Phallic Cult. It matched the Great Vulva cult on the neighboring "High Place". It goes on and one. Today God would be arrested. Finally around the sixth century BC, the Israelite heterosexual men had had enough of this God and his "love", so they wrote all kinds of laws against it and stuck them in the later books. They came to insist that God have no body and that he become just a moral principle. They finally defeated this "lover". The War was on. It's the same in the New Testament. The heterosexualists have been trying mightily to cover up their decidedly queer Lord ever since the beginning of the religion. That's why there is almost no biographical account of Jesus in scripture. The real story has been deleted. The gay Jesus was an embarrassment. They turned him into a paterfamilias. And family values took over. Yes, it's war!

Excellent summary of the various issues around this topic of a man-loving God or Gods.

In the case of Jaakob (English transliteration of original Hebrew) depending on your translation from ancient Hebrew, it is quite a stretch to presume this was about a sexual act. But it does show that God (or one of the Hebrew Gods) is physical indeed. No question about that. It also shows that the Christian and Judaic notion that no man can see God and live is a fallacy. Jaakob saw God and lived to tell about it.

Whether God/Theos or God/Jesus or even God/Holy Spirit (the Christian deities from the Greek New Testament) is man-loving or not, we are not told. St. Paul certainly would have argued against it, as would have Moses, if they were each here to argue about it.

It's not much of a stretch. Many theologians religious historians have concluded it was sexual. As for Moses, St. Paul, in Galatians, says that the Law he gave did not come from God but from the angels.

[GaryLouisSmith]

GaryLouisSmith: The heterosexualists have been trying mightily to cover up their decidedly queer Lord ever since the beginning of the religion. That's why there is almost no biographical account of Jesus in scripture.

Nonbelievers will of course say that's because he is a mythical character and the authoritative historical accounts of the time period support that position - there is absolutely no record of him.

But you are contradicting yourself: if there is so little biographical information on Jesus, why do you presume he was gay? One could make a case for any sexual orientation - or none at all, there are people who are genuinely asexual, they could care less about sex. If one finds simply being alive to be blissful, and Joy is one's constant companion, the lesser pleasures have no allure.

I think it is a lot of fun arguing about the historicity of Jesus. And about whether or not the Bible supports the idea that he was gay. I am aware that rationalists like you are uncomfortable talking about these issues and would just as soon make Jesus totally asexual. That's not going to happen.

[GaryLouisSmith]

h_k_s: It also shows that the Christian and Judaic notion that no man can see God and live is a fallacy. Jaakob saw God and lived to tell about it.

"Live" is not meant in the literal sense, it means to no longer live as the unenlightened do (those who have not known God). One is then, as Jesus said, "in the world but not of it."

I am of those who don't believe in enlightenment and who find the whole idea boring. I am so terribly benighted, I guess.